Eminent Domain—Construction of Statutes.—While statutes providing for the taking of property for public use without the consent of the owner are to be given a strict construction and the power to take must be given by the clear terms of the statute and is not to be extended by implication, still there should not be a construction so narrow as to defeat the evident purpose of the legislature.

Id.—Railroads—Land fob Freight House May Be Condemned.—Under section 1238 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that the right of eminent domain may be exercised in behalf of the following public uses, to wit, “ paths and roads either on the surface, elevated, or depressed, for the use of bicycles, tricycles, motorcycles and other horseless vehicles, steam, electric and horse railroads,” etc., and subdivision 7 of section 465 of the Civil Code, giving railroad companies power to purchase lands to be used in the construction and maintenance of their roads “ and all necessary appendages and adjuncts,” or to acquire them by condemnation, a railroad company may exercise the right of eminent domain to condemn a tract of land for the purpose of erecting a freight house thereon upon a proper showing of necessity.

Id.—Complaint—Allegation as to Antecedent Selection of Land.— Section 1244 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets forth what must be contained in a complaint for the condemnation of land, and does: not require that it shall allege that there has been a formal antecedent selection of the land involved for the purpose intended; nor need proof of such fact be made by the plaintiff on the trial.

Id.—Allegation of Necessity for Taking.—A complaint by a railroad company to condemn a tract of land for the purpose of a freight house sufficiently shows the necessity for taking the land for public use by allegations to the effect that its business has so greatly increased that its present facilities are inadequate to meet the traffic requirements; and “that it is necessary to construct and maintain an adjunct or appendage to said railroad, to wit: a freight house, adjoining said station grounds and as part thereof, and that it is necessary that the parcel of land here involved . . . be taken for the erection of a freight house for the reception and delivery of freight.”

Id.—Future Necessity—Growth of Neighborhood.—In determining whether the proposed taking is necessary not only the present demands of the public upon the plaintiff may be considered, but also those which may fairly be anticipated on account of the future growth of the neighborhood.

Id.—Market Value How Determined.—In ascertaining the market value of the land sought to be condemned the facts that defendant was unwilling to sell or wished to improve it himself are immaterial. The actual market value of the land is the measure of damages, and not its value in use to the owner or to the party who is seeking to condemn it.

Id.—Evidence of Necessity — Harmless Error. — Where a witness called by the plaintiff in the action to condemn land for a freight house testified without objection that a draymen’s association of which he was president had complained of delays in the delivery of freight, it is harmless, even if error, to permit him to further testify, over objections by the defendant, that such complaints had been made within the last year or two.

Id.—Evidence as to Eemote Cost Price.—The sustaining of an objection to a question asked a witness for the defendant designed to show the cost price of the land over twenty years prior to the commencement of the action is rendered harmless by the witness subsequently testifying to everything of consequence that was sought to be elicited. Besides, the time of the transaction was so remote that the price paid could have little if any weight on the question of value at the date of issuing the summons.

Id.—Evidence as to Assessed Value—Cross-Examination of Expert. —While the assessed value of the land is not admissible as original evidence of its market value, a witness who has testified as an expert may properly on cross-examination be asked what is his knowledge regarding the assessed value for the purpose of testing the value of his opinion, and may be likewise cross-examined regarding the appraisement of the property in the probate proceedings in connection with the estate of a former owner.